Merritt Clifton Heather Jackson's comment that "I'd rather see a pit on a chain than a pit on my kid" reflects a common misunderstanding of dog behavior that unfortunately is not a misunderstanding of pit bull behavior--but in part because of the effects of chaining on pits. Let me explain this paradox. Normal dogs, feeling uncertain or threatened, retreat and run away or bark. Chaining eliminates the options of retreating or running. Without a choice between fight or flight, the chained dog fights. This is why approximately a third of all fatal and disfiguring dog attacks on children are made by dogs who are chained at the time of the attack. Dogfighters have understood this aspect of dog psychology for hundreds of years, so fighting dogs have traditionally been chained just out of reach of each other to whet their fighting instincts practically since chains were invented. Since the instinct to retreat or run away has also been bred out of pit bulls, what we get in a chained pit bull is a pit bull with an accentuated inclination to attack. The safest way to keep a pit bull, if one must keep a pit bull, is behind high secure fences and locked gates -- never, ever on a chain.
THE MINIONS DON'T AGREE?
- But Merritt Clifton you aren't taking
- into account the fact that the owners are not going
- to
- simply not get a Pit or train it differently if they don't
- have a fence. Most fences can't hold pits anyway.
- They are going to simply , let them out. Pits don't "
- retreat " by nature. They don't act like other dogs.
- Normal dog behavior does not apply to them. I
- would not like to see any dog on a chain however I
- would rather see a pit on a chain than a owner open
- the door and a it run out onto my child or myself.
- How many kids are alive
- because a dog was chained? I know I am...........
- It's not good, but it's a better alternative because
- many never get off the chain.
- Interesting, Merritt , that a third of the attacks on
- children are by chained dogs. Obvious, really, if one
- thinks about it. Interesting too that
- dog fighters put each pit bull just out of reach of
- the others. Very mean, really but then chaining is
- such a mean thing to do to a dog.
MERRIT INSISTS
Merritt Clifton Chaining isn't really effective containment anyhow. Chaining does not keep a dog from breaking off the chain or chewing through a thin cable or breaking his/her collar or harness. All of these accidents happen often every day, & keep animal control officers employed. Neither does chaining keep people from wandering too close to a dog, or from tripping over the chain, a type of accident involved in about half of all chaining-related mailings. Chaining is also easily abused by people who yank a dog's chain to get a violent reaction. Effective containment means good fencing & keeping dogs indoors in weather that might encourage them to try to break loose to find warmer, dryer, safer habitat. Chaining is at best a lazy person's approach to solving a problem. I have more than 32 years' worth of data here to show that on balance it accomplishes zero toward making dogs safer. Effective containment makes dogs safer, but chaining in no way fits that definition.
AND I WAS MERRIT WAS STUPID
- I completely agree with almost
- everything you just stated however that doesn't
- change the facts. If these chains are preventing
- fatalities and these dogs are not controlled off the
- chains the damage will be catastrophic. I would
- rather see 10000000 dogs chained then one child
- killed or maimed. The owners that chained are
- irresponsible to begin with , outlawing chains won't
- change that and it takes a severe attack sometimes
- multiple severe attacks before animal control does
- anything.
- Think about it this way, each
- removal equals 1
- or more maulings or deaths.
- Sure they would lose the dog but others will pay
- the price........ I'd rather take my chances with a
- chained dog
NOW MERRIT TRIES BRINGING CULLEEN INTO IT?
Merritt Clifton
Chains are NOT preventing fatalities. That's the whole
point. The purported efficacy of
chaining in controlling a dog is an optical illusion.
Doubt
it? Compared Colleen Lynn's map of pit bull fatalities
with a map (I believe Dogs Deserve Better has one) of
places where chaining is forbidden.
Chains are NOT preventing fatalities. That's the whole
point. The purported efficacy of
chaining in controlling a dog is an optical illusion.
Doubt
it? Compared Colleen Lynn's map of pit bull fatalities
with a map (I believe Dogs Deserve Better has one) of
places where chaining is forbidden.
EVEN THE FOOT SOLDIERS ARE
QUESTIONING HIE BOTH HIS
METHODOLOGY AND HIS
OUTCOMES?
- With all do respect Merritt Clifton
- and I do have a ton of respect for you, you
- can't possibly have numbers on " prevented
- attacks"
- because there is nothing to report if nothing
- happened. I've seen some very hefty chains and
- collars and while breaking them is a possibility , I
- know 100% what the result of that dog running out
- the door or jumping a 4 ft fence would be. We can't
- change how responsible owners are. But I know if
- they are lazy enough to chain that they are also to
- lazy to keep tabs on their dogs off chains. Animal
- control can't really help unless there is an attack
- and
- by that point it's gone too far and someone will pay
- forever. A chain IMO IS another barrier between an
- irresponsible owner and and innocent person
- Does that map have a count of
- pits in the area too? Does it give a number ? I can
- make a map of neighborhoods here that will have
- great numbers , infact zero pit attacks and zero
- fatalities. Why ? Because there are very few pits
- there and the owners have a lot of money and can
- afford 20000 fences
- I don't think it's the chains, it's
- the numbers of pits and the ability of the owners
- to purchase very expensive high fences. Sure we
- all know that these people should not own
- animals but they still will regardless of anything
- we say or do.
- One mauling caused by chaining is far better than
- 100 caused by pits running free.
- Rachel Simas.
- We just look at it in the opposite way. There is no
- data on prevented attacks because you can't report
- something that was prevented. I know for a fact that a
- chain saved my child and myself and that animal
- control can do nothing until one of us is mauled. So
- your advocating for my neighbor to be required to let
- his dog off chain and run free because that is what
- will happen, it will run free and get taken by animal
- contra after it rips my child's face face off .......... Think
- of all the people who live next to chained pitties, what
- if it's your child? Would that be a price your willing to
- pay a risk your willing to take that the owner suddenly
- wakes up one day
- responsible ? I highly doubt it
- owners will not let the dog run free because it's
- against the rules to let the dog run free...... But it
- doesn't work that way, they will run free. Instead of me
- worrying about my child wandering within reach of
- the
- dog we will never be able to play outside at all
- because
- that's what I'll need to do to prevent an attack. I can
- call animal control all I want and rules or no rules their
- hands are tied until there is an attack . That dog being
- tethered is preventing an attack right now. I think that
- assuming that the dogs will be taken or that they will
- choose not to own dogs because of this law is
- a foolish and costly assumption and that there
- are to many variables in those " maps" to come to
- the conclusion that it's safer to have no chain laws.
- tethered. And the whole " maybe they would need
- to find another solution " doesn't work in these
- areas either because they simply , won't. They are
- tethered because they are aggressive they are
- not
- aggressive because they are tethered.
No comments:
Post a Comment